Hi Dorthey, I have the same question. I've read God's... and find it a lot more "brave/bold" in regards to touching sensitive religious issues. I visited the alford@eridu.co.uk website and i was baffled by the "exploded planet cult" theory. If you can find someone in the know that can sum it up briefly, let me know. I'm not sure i want to read his latest books yet.
RickyZ

Guest

Post subject:

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2002 10:19 am

Ricky Z and Dorothy,

Alan Alford believs that there was some primordial planet in or near our solar system--perhaps the Babylonian "Tiamat"--that blew up. There is astronomical data which shows that the asteroids and comets in our solar system have properties--such as apparent burn marks on one side, planetary chemical elements which are separated as if by gravity (which only planets would have enough of to cause the separation), periodicities--that belong to planets and which have shocked the typical astronomers. These data seem to indicate a past explosion event.
Alford has come to believe that the meteorites which pepper our earth are fragments of this exploded planet; he also believes that these meteorites are literally "the gods" of ancient religions. Alford says that the ancients were amazed and perplexed about these "gods" coming to earth and bringing the elements of life with them. They somehow figured out that the "lifeseed" was brought to earth from the heavens within these "chariots of the gods". At first, nature itself was worshiped (was seen as "numinous", as in the idea of the life-giving Abzu, which apparently was worshiped in its own right); as the millennia passed, the "gods" became personified. Alford seems to see evidence for this hypothesis in certain Egyptian heiroglyphs as well as in the legendary enshrinement of the conical Ben-Ben Stone. Alford even goes so far as to say that the entire tale of Atlantis as related by Plato is really an allegorical description--and memory--of the exploding of a planet.
Alford, however, is still at a loss to explain the ancients' creation of the miraculous ancient monuments such as the Great Pyramids or the "battery" known as the Arc of the Covenant or a host of other ancient technological marvels supposedly had by these primitive-minded planet cultists. Therefore, he proposes that there is a human race on this planet that is thousands upon thousands of years older than the primitive humans of Sumer and Egypt and us. This race is super-advanced, and has aided in the development of the younger generations' civilizations. But this super-advanced human race remains in hiding because we are so violent and hostile. Alford points out that approximately 60% of the landmass of the Earth is unpopulated (by us) and is heavily forested, making hiding easy. The sightings of UFOs are most likely the ships of these super-advanced humans checking us out now that we threaten the whole planet with out nuclear weapons and poor ecological practices. Alford is also a spiritual mystic in the style of Plato. He believes in the literal eternalness of a literal "soul" and he finds evidence for this mysterious spiritual essence in the very hypothesis of the exploded planet cults (I'm not sure how, but he says so).
I respect Alford a lot. But his conclusions leave me unsatiated. First off, I'm tired of people saying that they've "discovered the real Atlantis". Has it occurred to anyone that Plato was just relaying history and geography to the best of his ability, and that Atlantis was where he said it was, and that it really did get destroyed in the way he said it did? Secondly, I don't like the Deus ex Machina of an in-hiding super-advanced and super-old human race. Laying that on the table is no less "weird" than talking of the Nibiruans. And I fail to be convinced that people were "really" worshiping meteorites and related objects when they wrote detailed accounts of Seth and Osiris and Horus and the Phoenix. Alford's pattern has become: "This is what REALLY was going on." Sitchin does not fall prey to this (very much): he just tries to elucidate and illuminate what people were DESCRIBING. There is evidence that ancient humans felt worshipful towards nature and the heavens; but this fails to justify the concept of a "planet cult". After all, in today's society, do people not "worship" the songs of music stars that they "worship"? Do they not "worship" the words of people deemed great thinkers and great writers--"gods"? The ancient people could very easily have been worshiping meteorites and the Abzu and etc. simply because of these things' associations with the Annunaki. Alford wants to "peel away the veil of appearances" because of his underlying spiritual mysticism. As great as his research is, this underlying mysticism skewes all of his interpretations.

Star Gazer

Post subject:

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2002 5:26 am

Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 6:10 amPosts: 80Location: East Coast

About some of the "Guests" I hear on shows like Art Bell's Coast to Coast...

I believe Sitchin's writings still make more "Logical" sense than anything else I've heard of to date. I for one, am real tired of hearing people espouse their theories saying "I believe this" and "I feel this way about that" without any logic or "Proof" of any kind. It all makes good fodder for a book or two and maybe some money in the pocket but leaves me completely unsold. It's what I call "Fanciful Thinking".... IE, Gosh, wouldn't that be neat....

As I said, Dr. Sitchin is the first to come even close to stepping up to the plate and providing any kind of a reason for me to believe in ET's or true ancient civilizations of any kind. Just tonight I was listening to George Norri and his "Doctor" guest talk about the big bang theory proving God exists and has to have created the universe. Now, I believe in God but the logic they were peddling did not fly. That old dog won't hunt, based on their "Logic?".... more fanciful thinking and reaching for straws. Just because looking up at the stars at night is truely awe inspiring is no reason to believe in God. Trying to say it is, is just more "Junk Science" which gives us all a bad rep......

God, wouldn't it be great to hear a talk show about "Real Science" more often and speculation called speculation based on some kind of logical thought process...

(Edited by Star Gazer at 4:19 am on Mar. 7, 2002)

Guest

Post subject:

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2002 10:13 am

Precisely, Star Gazer!

Lynnwood G Charland

Post subject:

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 4:26 pm

Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 8:29 amPosts: 6Location: Ottawa, Canada

To editor,
I have read 'Gods of the new millennium' and was much facinated at the time by that book. Later I looked into zecharias work because thats where he (Alfredson) seemed to get his knowlegde from. I read a later work by Alfredson and was not impressed it would seem he got thrown out to left feild sort of to say about his inquery to the unknown.

(Edited by Lynnwood G Charland at 12:27 pm on Dec. 16, 2004)

mutantone

Post subject:

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 4:03 am

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:23 pmPosts: 19

We have two dilemmas, one physical, one personal.

Our science makes no satisfactory explanation for the worldwide phenomenons of megalithic structures, ooparts, giant skeletons, cryptid hominids, Ufo's, and the Flood. Zecharia has shed light on all these.
Zecharia has done more to illuminate us than a roomful of scientists, however; He pointedly sidesteps our personal dilemmas of Who, or what, is the real creator of all. This is both polite, and smart.
Who did Anu answer to?
Why do we have an inherent sense of morals?
Ea and Enlil were flawed in this regard the same as us,
was it just their father, or did they also fear a final judgement by some other entity?
Who?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum